N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
R IC HARD W . C ALDAR ONE, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. NEIL AB ER C R OM B IE; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 15-16190 D.C . No. 1:14-c v-00523-LEKB M K M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ha

wa ii Le slie E . Koba

y a shi, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 24, 2016 * * B e fore : LEAVY, FER NANDEZ, a

nd R AW LINSON, C irc uit Judge s. R ic ha rd W . C a l da

rone a ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t

c ourt’ s judgm e nt dism issing his ac tion a lle ging fe de ra l a nd sta te la w c la im s a

rising out of a

prior sta te fore c losure proc e e ding involving his prope rty . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re v ie w de n ovo. Doev . Abbott Labs. , 571 F.3d 930, 933 (9th 

# FIL ED MAR 03 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).C ir. 2009) (dism issa l unde r Fe d. R . C iv. P. 12(b)(6)); C rum v . C i rc us C irc us Ente rs. , 231 F.3d 1129, 1130 (9th C ir. 2000) (dismissa l for la c k of subje c t m atte r jurisdic tion). W e a ffirm
. The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d C a lda

rone ’ s c la im s a ga inst de fe nda nts Abe rc rom

bie , Lope z , and Louiebe c a use the y we re e ntitle d to Ele ve nth Am e ndm e nt im

m unity
. S e e Flint v . De nnison , 488 F.3d 816, 824-25 (9th C ir. 2007) (Ele ve nth Am e ndm e nt ba rs da m a ge s a c tions a g a inst sta

te offic i a ls in the ir offic ia l c a pa c ity ). The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d C a lda

rone ’ s c la im s a ga inst de fe nda nt Ibarra be c a use he wa s e ntitle d to judic ia l im m unity
. Se eAshe lman v . Pope , 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th C ir. 1986) (e n ba nc ) (“ J udge s a nd thosepe rform ing judge -like func tions a

re a bsolute ly im m une from dam a ge lia

bility for a c ts pe rform e d in the ir offic i a l c a pa c itie s .” ). The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d C a lda

rone ’ s c la im s a ga inst de fe nda nts C la y an d C ha pm an be c a

use C a lda rone fa ile d to e sta

blish fe de ra l subje c t m atte r jurisdic tion ove r his c la im s a ga inst the m . Se e 28 U.S.C . §§ 1331, 1332(a )(1); Prov inc i al Gov ’t of Marinduque v . Plac e r Dome

, Inc
. , 582 F.3d 1083, 1086-87 (9th C ir. 2009) (disc ussing re quire m e nts for fe de ra l que stion jurisdiction unde r § 1331); In reDigimarc C orp. De riv ativ eLitig. , 549 F.3d 1223, 1234 (9th C ir.
1 5 - 1 6 1 9 0 22008) (“ Dive rsity jurisdic tion re quire s c om ple te dive rsity

be twe e n the pa rtie s
— e a c h

de fe nda nt m ust be a c itiz e n of a

diffe re nt sta

te from e a c h pla intiff.” );
se e a lso K

ok k one n v . Guardian Life

Ins. C o. of Am. , 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (party a sse rting jurisdic tion be ars the burde n of proving fe de ra l jurisdic tion). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de ny i ng C a lda

rone ’ s m otion for le ave to a

m e nd be c a

use am e ndm e nt would ha v e be e n futile
. Se e C

happe l v
. Lab. C orp. of Am. , 232 F.3d 719, 725-26 (9th C ir. 2000) (se tting forth sta nda rd of re vie w a n d e xpla i ning tha

t a distric t c ourt m ay de ny le a ve to a m e nd whe re am e ndm e nt would befutile ). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de ny i ng C a lda

rone ’ s m otions for re c usa l be c a

u se no fa c ts support a

c onc lusion tha

t JudgeKoba

y a shi’ s im pa rtia lity m ay re a sona bly be que stione d. Se e Unite d State s v . J ohnson , 610 F.3d 1138, 1147-48 (9th C ir. 2010) (se tting forth sta nda rd of re vie w a

nd disc ussing grounds for re c usa l). W e do not c onside r issue s or a rgum e nts not spe c i fic a lly and distinc t ly

ra ise d and a rgue d in theope ning brie f. Se ePadge tt v . W right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th C ir. 2009). C a lda rone ’ s m o t ion to strike , for a jury tria l, a nd for sa n c tions, file d on

1 5 - 1 6 1 9 0 3De c e m

b e r 7, 2015, is denie d. AFFIRM E D.

1 5 - 1 6 1 9 0 4